"ject, it appears only necessary to bring forward the entire quo"tation.”—Having done this, he proceeds :-" Can the all"perfect Jehovah be anointed? Can any thing be imparted "to him, or his eternal glory receive any increase? Is there "any being in existence who can be called HIS GOD? Can "the God who is supreme over all have a superior ?-Either "these questions must be answered in the affirmative, to the "subversion of piety, as well as common sense, or it must be "conceded, that the invocation O GOD' is to be understood "according to the inferior sense of the name." Pages 185, 186.

We have, first of all, in this singular passage, the admission, that the words quoted by the apostle are an address to the Son; so that, in as far as this quotation is concerned, the criticisms on the import of ПРО have no application whatever. How little they have to the quotation which follows it, we shall afterwards see.—But further: we have here a remarkable instance of what is a common practice with our author. He states, in terms of the utmost confidence, difficulties attending the interpretations of Trinitarians, difficulties involving, according to him, "the subversion of piety and common sense," without ever so much as adverting, any more than if he never had heard of such a thing, to the great principle of their system, by which such difficulties are solved-I mean, the double view of the person and character of Christ,—as being God in our nature, and as sustaining the voluntarily assumed relation of a servant of the Godhead, fulfilling a work, and receiving his mediatorial dominion in reward of it. "Ita et "de Christo," says Calvin," Scripturæ loquuntur: attribuunt "illi interdum quæ ad humanitatem singulariter referri o"porteat; interdum quæ divinitati peculiariter competant :

66

nonnunquam quæ utramque naturam complectantur, neutri "seorsum satis conveniant. Atque istam quidem duplicis

Ꮓ

“ nature conjunctionem, que in Christo subest, tanta religione exprimunt, ut eas quandoque inter se communi"cent; qui tropus veteribus idiμarwy nonava dictus est." Instit. p. 123. So also the Scriptures speak of Christ: "sometimes ascribing to him properties which belong ex<clusively to the human nature; sometimes such as are "peculiar to the Divine; and, occasionally, such as em❝brace both, not being sufficiently appropriate to either "of them by itself. And, indeed, that union of two na"tures which subsists in Christ, they express with so much "scrupulosity, that they even at times impute, recipro"cally, the properties of the one to the other;-a figure "of speech, which is called by the ancients dwuatwv noivwvie ❝-communion of properties."-Let the reader assume the correctness of this principle, and he will find no difficulty in conceiving, how Christ should be addressed as possessing the Divine nature, and yet, in the character of Mediator, and in the form of a servant, as anointed; as having the Father for his God; and as receiving "dominion, and glory, " and a kingdom." From this single consideration, he may appreciate the value of Mr. Yates's confident assertion, that, "in order to remove every doubt" that the name. God is to be understood in the inferior sense," it is only ne

66

s cessary to bring forward the entire quotation."

1 John v. 20. "We know that the Son of God is come, " and hath given us an understanding that we may know "him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even "in his Son Jesus Christ. THIS IS THE TRUE GOD, and ❝ eternal life."

Of Mr. Yates's strictures on this text too (which is the text of my Discourses on the Divinity of Christ), I might simply say, "answered by anticipation."-The extreme con

fidence of his assertions, however, which is here, as in some other cases, in the inverse ratio of the strength of his ment, renders a few remarks necessary.

argu

1. On the question whether the pronoun "this" refers to the near or to the remote antecedent, Mr. Yates first tries to get a near antecedent more suitable than the existing one to the Unitarian hypothesis, by observing, that Griesbach marks as doubtful the words "Jesus Christ." "Now," says he, "if these words be omitted, the nearest antecedent is "the word (aurov) 'his,' which refers to God." (P. 187.)-Had Mr. Yates felt perfect confidence in the validity of his subsequent principle of interpretation, by which the pronoun is made to refer to the remote antecedent, he would hardly, I should think, have condescended to notice this. For, in the first place, Griesbach not only does not reject the words "Jesus "Christ" from the text, (which of itself should have been enough to prevent Mr. Yates from founding any thing on their " uncertainty")-he is so far from rejecting them, that the particular mark which he affixes to them is one which implies, that had they been absent from the received text, he would have inserted them as having been omitted; only marking them with a certain sign, to indicate to the reader that this had been done, from a preponderance of evidence in their favour.-In the second place, their omission would, after all, make no difference whatever in the argument. The words would run thus,-" and we are in him "that is true, even in his Son. This is the true God, and “ eternal life:”και ἡμεις, ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῳ, ΕΝ ΤΩ ΥΙΩ ΑΥ̓ΤΟΥ͂· ΟΥ̓ΤΟΣ ἐστι ὁ ἀληθίνος Θεός, κ. τ. λ.- ΑΥΤΟΥ, Mr. Yates alleges, thus becomes the immediate antecedent to orTox: and, no doubt, in point of mere local position so it is. But let the reader judge, how low he reduces himself in the argument, when

he chooses for his antecedent the most unemphatic word in the whole preceding sentence,-the he that is involved in the possessive his. I am fully persuaded, that, even on the supposition made, any reader, free from prejudice, will consider ΤΩ ΥΙΩ ΑΥΤΟΥ as still the immediate antecedent. -I am not surprised that Mr. Yates should have taken no notice of the second of the cases mentioned by me as justifying the reference of the demonstrative pronoun to the remote antecedent;-namely, "when the immediate an"tecedent holds no prominent place in the sentence, but is "introduced only incidentally, the remote being obviously "the chief subject, having the entire, or greatly prepon"derating emphasis, in the mind of the writer." Discourses, p. 38.-He could not well question the correctness of the rule; but it would certainly have ill comported with this criticism of his.

The first of the two cases mentioned by me, of warrantable exception to the general rule of connecting the demonstrative pronoun with the immediate antecedent, was-" when "obvious and indisputable necessity requires the contrary;" and on this I observed as follows: "But in the instance in "our text, no such necessity can be pleaded, except on the "previous assumption of the certainty that Jesus Christ is not "the true God. Were this antecedently demonstrated, it might justify a deviation from ordinary practice. But to proceed on such an assumption, is to beg the question in dis"pute."-Now, what says Mr. Yates to this? Why, with the utmost calmness and confidence, without so much as deigning to notice the observation, he just proceeds on this very assumption. He first of all refers to those passages (two of which I had noticed in a note, as usually adduced by Unitarians), namely, 2 John 7. Acts iv. 11. vii. 19. dwelling particularly on the

66

66

first of them," Many deceivers are entered into the world, "who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This " is a deceiver and an Antichrist." He then goes on thus:"But, replies Mr. Wardlaw, the sense of these passages is "clear; because, by supposing the pronoun to refer to the "near antecedent, you make the Scriptures speak nonsense. "True, my dear friend; and so do you, when you assert "that"THIS is the true God' means Jesus Christ is the true "God.' A person, not previously instructed in the doctrines "of Trinitarianism, would at the first glance perceive this senti"ment to be so false and absurd, that he would immediately "refer the pronoun to the more remote antecedent, forming ❝an instantaneous judgment, that the Apostle did not intend "to represent Jesus Christ as the true God' any more than "to describe him as a deceiver and an Antichrist.' The "primitive Christians, who were equally strangers to both of "these impossibilities, would without hesitation refer the pro"noun to the more remote antecedent in both cases alike. "maintain, therefore, with Mr. Belsham, that the cases are "similar; though by so doing I incur that most unreason"able charge which you have directed against him, of want "of candour." Pages 187, 188.

66

Here we have a tissue of abundantly bold assumptions, without one pennyweight of argument.-We have, in the first place, the assumption, that we Trinitarians, in making the Scriptures affirm Jesus Christ to be God, make them affirm as great nonsense as if we should make them affirm Jesus Christ to be a deceiver and an Antichrist. This of itself is a tolerably fair specimen of Unitarian confidence.-But further: whatever be Mr Yates's ideas of sense and nonsense, the question is a simple matter-of-fact one;-Do these Scriptures affirm Jesus Christ to be God-or do they not? The foregoing